The main legal point established in the judgment is that a society substantially financed by the government qualifies as a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act 2005 and is obligated to furnish information to its members.

S. Mani Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10-6-2008, passed by the District Registrar (Societies Registration), Thanjavur, 2nd Respondent herein, Karanthai Tamil Sangam represented by its Secretary, Petitioner herein, has filed this present writ petition.

2. Facts of the case are as follows:

Karanthai Tamil Sangam was established in the year 1911 in Karathattangudi, Thanjavur town. The object of the society is to develop Tamil Language and spread educational institutions. The Sangam has established several educational institutions. There are 147 life members and elections are conducted periodically. The elected representatives hold the office for a period of three years and administer the affairs of the Sangam.

3. According to the Petitioner, the first Respondent was originally a member of a Sangam. As his conduct was harmful and as he also came to adverse notice, in the general body meeting held on 28-9-2002 a resolution was passed and accordingly, he was removed from the membership of the society. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal to the 2nd Respondent. His removal was also confirmed and that the appeal filed by the 1st Respondent and Anr. person by name Mr. T. K. P. Govindasamy were dismissed by the District Registrar on 29-10-2004 and thus, the removal of his membership has reached a finality.

4. According to the Petitioner, the affairs of the society has been done in accordance with the statutory provisions and bye-laws. The first Respondent filed a representation on 9-12-2002, to the District Registrar (Registration), Thanjavur and sought for an enquiry on the basis of some frivolous allegations made against the society, its affairs and administration. A writ petition No. 7706/03 was also filed for a Mandamus to consider the above said representation and this Court by order dated 11-3-2003 directed the Respondents therein, to dispose of the representation within a period of three months. Accordingly, an enquiry was also conducted by the competent authority and ultimately the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, passed an order on 2-5-2008, holding that the allegations and accusations made by the 1st Respondent were not proved for the purpose of appointment of an enquiry officer, as insisted by the first Respondent herein, and accordingly, the said authority passed an order on 2-5-2008. Thus the matter relating to an enquiry sought for by the first Respondent under Section 36 of the Registration, Act has reached its, finality.

5. While that be so, the first Respondent sought for a xerox copy of the day book pertaining to a receipt of a sum of Rs. , 3,00,000/-received by the Sangam from Karanthai Arts College. In exercise of powers under the Right to Information Act, the District Registrar, Thanjavur, 2nd Respondent herein, by his order dated 10-6-2008, has directed the Managing Director of Karanthai Tamil Sangam to issue a xerox copy of the abovesaid document. The said order is put to challenge in this writ petition.

6. Assailing the correctness of the impugned directions, Mr. Vijayaraghavan, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner's Sangam not being aided by the Government, does not fall within the ambit of Right to Information Act, to accede to the request of the first Respondent. According to him, the society has to function as per the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and the bye-laws made thereunder and inasmuch as by resolution No. 7 dated 28-9-2002, the membership of the first Respondent has already been terminated, he has no legal or statutory right to seek for any information even under the Right to Information Act.

7. Inviting the attention of this Court, to an order passed in Case No. 29011/Q/07 dated 6-2-2008 by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission on a query dated 31-10-2007, made by Thiru. M. Saravanamuthu, regarding the functions of a welfare association not aided by the Government, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that when the